Tourism Review
OVERTOURISM: RESIDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TOURISM
IMPACT AS AN INDICATOR OF RESIDENT SOCIAL CARRYING
CAPACITY - CASE STUDY OF A SPANISH HERITAGE TOWN
Journal:
Tourism Review
Manuscript ID
TR-08-2017-0138.R1
Manuscript Type:
Research Paper
Keywords:
social carrying capacity, heritage towns, social exchange, gender, besalú,
spain
Tourism Review
Tourism Review
1
RESIDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TOURISM IMPACT AS AN INDICATOR OF RESIDENT SOCIAL
CARRYING CAPACITY: CASE STUDY OF A SPANISH HERITAGE TOWN
Abstract:
Purpose: This study assesses the value of impact perceptions as an indicator of social
carrying capacity in the heritage town of Besalú, Spain. Additionally, it assesses the impact
tourism dependence and other socio-demographic variables have on this indicator.
Design and methodology: A literature review on social exchange theory (SET) and carrying
capacity related to impact perceptions is presented. The method was a survey, with a
questionnaire based on the literature review and in-depth interviews. The results have been
analyzed statistically to determine the links between perceptions and socio-demographic
variables. Using statistical tools, perceptions are compared to three indicators that have
been used to determine capacity in literature: willingness to accept more tourism, tourism
pressure and the tourist function index.
Findings: The willingness of residents to enter into, and remain, in an exchange relationship
is affected primarily by tourism dependence, and to a lesser extent by gender and education.
Additionally, impact perceptions do not correspond to a willingness to accept more tourists.
The impacts of tourism on conservation show greater consensus, while impacts on the
availability of space for residents shows links to other capacity indicators.
Originality/Value: This study enhances the body of knowledge on social carrying capacity in
heritage towns, by focusing on a regionally prominent day-tripper heritage town facing high
tourism pressure which is Besalú. From a theoretical perspective, this study attempts to
merge carrying capacity and social exchange theory (SET), thus linking sustainability to social
exchange. It also highlights the importance of a gender based perspective in sustainability.
Keywords: social carrying capacity; social exchange theory; sustainable tourism; heritage
towns; Besalú; Catalonia; Spain
INTRODUCTION
Residents play a vital role in developing sustainable tourism as they are the cultural agents
and the social group in which tourism is delivered. It has been acknowledged, therefore,
that since local hospitality is a key element of the tourism product, some way of “repaying”
or spreading the benefits to the community needs to be found (Glasson, Godfrey, &
Goodey, 1997). Residents have gained importance in the tourism equation, as their
perceptions indicate tourism’s outlook regarding sustainability. Their goodwill is considered
crucial to the success and sustainability of any tourism development (Bimonte & Punzo,
2016) .
This article specifically analyses the value of residents’ perceptions of tourism as an
indicator of social carrying capacity levels in a heritage town in Spain. Carrying capacity is
multidimensional since environmental, economic, psychological and perceptual factors need
to be considered, depending on the particular concerns of the stakeholders involved (Simón,
Page 1 of 30 Tourism Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Tourism Review
2
Narangajavana, & Marqués, 2004). Accordingly, studies have emerged which focus on 1)
environmental and biophysical carrying capacity (R. Z. Liu & Borthwick, 2011; Simón et al.,
2004; Zacarias, Williams, & Newton, 2011); 2) economic carrying capacity (Sowman, 1987)
and 3) social carrying capacity (Graefe & Vaske, 1987; Navarro et al., 2012). The
interconnectedness between these dimensions has been consistently acknowledged in
literature as well as their relevance to any comprehensive assessment of capacity (Navarro
et al., 2012; Simón et al., 2004). However, the focus of this study is specifically to gain depth
in social carrying capacity in a heritage town and the value of residents’ impact perception
in its assessment.
Regardless of its definition, social carrying capacity is generally framed as making some type
of reference to residents’ impact perceptions. D’Amore (1983) and Madrigal (1993) define
it as the level above which there is an imbalance between the rewards and benefits of
tourism for residents. Navarro (2012) uses the term “resident social carrying capacity” (as
opposed to “tourist social carrying capacity”), and measures the former through residents’
perceptions. Even studies that take a broader perspective of social carrying capacity use
resident impact perceptions in their assessment. Glasson (1994: 144), for example, defines
capacity as “the number of visitors an art city can absorb without hindrance of the other
social and economic urban functions it performs.” The study includes residents’ impact
perceptions in the assessment. On the other hand, many residents’ impacts perceptions
studies make reference to social carrying capacity as a theoretical basis (Glasson, 1994;
Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Johnson, Snepenger, & Akis, 1994; J. Liu, Sheldon, & Var,
1987; Vargas-Sánchez, Porras-Bueno, & Plaza-Mejía, 2011). These studies point out that
negative results indicate a movement towards capacity levels (Vargas-Sánchez et al., 2011).
The aim of this article is to study residents’ impact perceptions as an indicator of social
carrying capacity. In order to assess its effectiveness, the tourist function index, tourism
pressure and willingness to accept more tourism are valued. These three indicators have
been used in previous studies to assess social carrying (J. Liu et al., 1987; Shelby &
Haberlein, 1986). In this study, these indicators provide an important basis for the study of
residents’ impact perceptions in relation to capacity.
This study follows on from previous studies indicating that residents’ perceptions are far
from homogeneous, and that perceptions of tourism impacts change between segments of
the population as they are influenced by many variables (K. L. Andereck & Vogt, 2000;
Jurowski, Uysal, & Williams, 1997; Mason & Cheyne, 2000; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2012).
Therefore, a secondary aim is to study the impacts of different variables on residents’
perceptions as an indicator of social carrying capacity. The sociodemographic variables
examined are gender, education, and age. Taking a social exchange theory (SET) approach,
four hypotheses are evaluated. The first hypothesis states that the variable willingness to
accept more tourism will have values that indicate a movement towards capacity levels in
the study area. The second hypothesis states that impact perceptions are linked to
willingness to accept more tourism. The third hypothesis stems from a SET approach stating
that residents who are employed in the tourism industry, or have close relatives employed
there, welcome tourists more than those who are not. The fourth hypothesis is that
employment in the tourism industry positively correlates with tourism impact perceptions.
The first and second hypotheses are focused on assessing the social carrying capacity of the
Page 2 of 30Tourism Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Tourism Review
3
study, and use indicators established in literature, and also assess whether they correlate
with each other. The other two hypotheses focus on the importance of employment in
tourism related to social carrying capacity. These hypotheses are supported by relevant
literature and theory.
The implications of this study are significant as they enhance the understanding of capacity
in small heritage towns. Even though they share common themes with other types of
destination, “the impact of tourism on heritage cities is “inherently place specific”
(Simpsion, 1999: 173). Since spatial constraints are a key issue in carrying capacity the
characteristics of the study area are very relevant. Carrying capacity originated in studies of
open outdoor natural spaces (R. Z. Liu & Borthwick, 2011; Simón et al., 2004; Zacarias et al.,
2011). In contrast fortified colonial cities, European historic centers or Muslim medinas,
tend to have narrow streets and are surrounded in many cases by ports, walls or rivers, a
layout that is somewhat enclosed. Few studies have applied a method to determine carrying
capacity to tourism spaces with dominant historic and heritage attractions (Garcia, De la
Calle Vaquero, & Minguez Garcia, 2011). Four such studies have been identified. Glasson et.
Al. (1997) studied twenty European cities under a carrying capacity perspective and made
management recommendations. The study of Glasson (1994) in the city of Oxford explored
visitors’ and residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts in the city of Oxford, and assessed
capacity. Canestrelli & Costa (1991) also determined the carrying capacity of the city of
Venice using a mathematical linear programming technique. The same technique was used
with success in the cities of Rhodes, Cambridge and Vis (Van Der Borg, Costa, & Gotti, 1996).
CARRYING CAPACITY AND RESIDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS
According to UNWTO, carrying capacity is “the maximum number of people that may visit a
tourist destination at the same time without causing destruction of the physical, economic
or socio-cultural environment and an unacceptable decrease in tourist satisfaction”
(1997:5). It is, thus, a turning point when tourism is no longer healthy for any given
stakeholder. In the 60’s, carrying capacity was used as a theoretical approach to centre
discussion on the negative impacts of tourism. This approach, however, was to be replaced
by sustainable tourism as a theoretical tool (Saarinen, 2006). Some authors wonder whether
this really is a replacement, as both ideas are very similar (Butler, 1999; Saarinen, 2006).
Both theories are based on a threshold of tourism growth.
The literature in the field outlines that there are various conceptual bases for carrying
capacity, these are social, economic and ecological (Simón et al., 2004). These bases are
studied separately, or integrated in comprehensive frameworks to assess carrying capacity
in general (Navarro et al., 2012; Papageorgiou & Brotherton, 1999; Shelby & Haberlein,
1986). Navarro et. al. (2012), for example, studied social carrying capacity together with 23
additional indicators in a methodology to assess carrying capacity. In carrying capacity
studies, the perspective of the local community is generally measured through resident
attitudes (under the name of perceptions, attitudes or opinions), or through a direct
observation of their behavior in relation to tourism impacts. Thus, residents’ perceptions of
impacts are taken as an important indicator of social carrying capacity. Local attitudes and
the resulting levels of hospitality towards visitors have been identified as a factor shaping
Page 3 of 30 Tourism Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Tourism Review
4
the attractiveness of a destination, and negative attitudes could constitute a key threshold
in determining the capacity of an area to absorb tourism (Getz, 1994).
Although carrying capacity is recognized as a useful approach to manage tourism growth, it
has been challenged, and its applications somewhat modified. Some authors have stated
that focusing on tourism numbers may be misleading, since no specific impacts can be
associated with a particular number of tourists(Glasson et al., 1997; Manning, Wang,
Valliere, Lawson, & Newman, 2002; Martin, 1994). Numbers are much less important than
other factors associated with the visit, such as timing, location, type of use, and visitor
behavior (Lindberg, McCool, & Stankey, 1997). In response to this, alternative models have
been proposed, for instance, the Limits of Acceptable Change Model (LAC) (Martin, 1994). In
the LAC model, the intentions are as follows: to assess the likely impact of an activity on the
destination; to agree in advance the degree of change that will be tolerated; to monitor the
industry on a regular and systematic basis; and to decide what actions will be taken if these
‘quality standards’ are exceeded (Glasson, et.al, 1997:56). This shift, from visitor numbers to
impacts, has its correlate in empirical research, since most studies use questionnaires
phrased in terms of the impacts of tourism, instead of, or in addition to tourism numbers (K.
L. Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Kathleen L. Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Boley, McGehee,
Perdue, & Long, 2014; Glasson, 1994; Gursoy, Jurowski, & Uysal, 2002). Notwithstanding
these challenges, carrying capacity continues to be used as a tool in understanding the
impacts of tourism in a destination.
A key perception studied in carrying capacity is the perception of crowding. Even though
some authors link crowding to a negative state of mind, early works disagree that crowding
is necessarily a negative state of experience (Choi, Mirjafari, & Weaver, 1976; Hall, 1994).
The cognitive perception of crowding is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for the
person to want to leave the place (Neuts & Nijkamp, 2012). Thus, the perception of
crowding may be thought of as an attitude in which a perception of an excessive use level of
tourism which may (or may not) lead to a negative state, and a change in behaviour. In their
seminal work, Shelby and Haberlein (1986) used crowding perception to determine carrying
capacity. Their rule is: “if more than two-thirds of the visitors say that they are crowded it is
likely that the capacity has been exceeded. If less than one-third senses the overcrowding,
the area is probably below the load capacity” (Shelby and Haberlein, 1986:62). Their study,
however, focused on the perceptions of tourists, not residents. In 2013, Shelby &
Haberlein’s rule was used in another study of tourists’ perceptions by Navarro et. al. who
assessed carrying capacity in La Costa del Sol (Navarro, Damian, & Fernández-Morales,
2013). While more recent articles have used the rule and propose it as a viable method
(Navarro et al., 2012, 2013; Vaske & Shelby, 2008), the study areas are natural areas and the
type of tourism is nature-based. One study applying the rule set out by Shelby and Haberlein
(1986) was found regarding residents in a heritage city context. Glasson (1994) used this to
study residents’ perceptions in the city of Oxford, England. The study concluded that “there
is some evidence to suggest that tourism in Oxford may be near its capacity: 56% of the
respondents felt that the number of tourists was too high, 41% about right, and almost no
one felt it was too low” (Glasson, 1994:141).
Social Carrying Capacity and its Relationship with Social Exchange Theory (SET)
Page 4 of 30Tourism Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
